Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 45
CNNW 22
FBC 10
CSPAN 8
CSPAN2 4
KGO (ABC) 2
KNTV (NBC) 2
KPIX (CBS) 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 148
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 148 (some duplicates have been removed)
in entitlement reform. medicare, medicaid, these are chief drivers of the deficit. there's other spending we have to cut. >> hold on a second. i think that we all know what the chief drivers of our deficit are and have been. our projected deficit has driven by the wars and the bush tax cuts. entitlement programs don't even compete with these costs. plouffe went on to pin the problem largely on republicans who are not flexible, but he also said this. >> where the big bottleneck is republicans in congress around revenue and how much and where does it come from, democrats are going to have to step up and do some tough things. and the notion that somehow that these deficits and our debt are not a threat to our national security on our economic future is something i cannot disagree with more strongly. there are some commentators on the left that suggest that. that we shouldn't deal with that at all. >> voices on the left are not saying the deficit is not a problem for our future. progressives understand we need to deal with our debt, but progressives don't want to see the burden of deficit reduction p
to solve the deficit standoff, people should listen to this guy. plouffe said this is going to get hairy? >> we want to engage in comprehensive tax reform. we also need to engage in entitlement reform. you know? medicare, medicaid carefully, these are chief drivers of our deficit. we made a lot of progress with obama care and there's other spending we have to cut. >> hold on a second. i think we all know what the chief drivers of our deficit are and have been. our projected deficit over the next seven years is driven mostly by the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the bush tax cuts. entitlement programs don't even compete with these costs. plouffe went on to pin the problem largely on republicans who are not flexible on higher tax rates, but he also said this. >> and so where i think the big bottleneck right now is republicans in congress on revenue and how much and where does it come from. democrats are also going to have to step up here and do some tough things. and you know, the notion that somehow that these deficits and our debt are not a threat to our national security and our econo
to do something to fix our skyrocketing deficit. our national deficit that he will tell you has been going up and up and up like a rocket and spiraling out of control like a something going out of control and paul ryan is just so right and if congress and president obama do not do something to stop the skyrock edding deficit, to sop up the red ink, if they don't do it by new year's or sometimes whenever the emergency is supposed to happen, we will go flying off the fiscal cliff. and not like these guys who mean to do that, but more like cliffhanger cliff on "the price is right" for whom going over the edge is really a dire mistake. beware the fiscal cliff. you will hear this at the thanksgiving dinner table. when someone inevitably brings up the fiscal cliff and how our sky rocketing deficit is a huge danger to us, do not crawl under the table. do not give up on thanksgiving. help your giant uncle understand that what he is freaking out about is not true. it is easy. there are visual aids that might help. look. first of all, the amount of money borrowed by the government has been goi
? fewer still want to be loved with all the deficit. lou: it's going to have to mean cutting the federal budget.the x >> even if we increase the taxr, rates, as you noted, the top 1%y in this country, 17% of the 37 income is what they make. they pay 7% 37% of the taxes.oug lou: give us your last thought here.ith the >> mr. president, please, please we work with the businessyou' putti community. we want you to succeed. but you are puttingy animpedims in a way to make it impossible. we want you to succeed. work with us. >> i don't expect the republicans to love our budget. compromise is hard. we are going to have to compromise. lou: no spending cuts, what is the deal? that is tonight's "chalk talk" people really love snapshot from progressive, but don't just listen to me. listen to these happy progressive customers. i plugged in snapshot, and 30 days later, i wasaving big on car insurance. with snapshot, i knew what i could save before i switched to progressive. the better i drive, the more i save. i wish our company had something this cool. you're not filming this, are you? aw! camera sh
to the deficit, they say, and it needs to be part of the deficit. the opposing view of durban says social security is not in a crisis. back to our question for our viewers. how would you fix your school system? david in kansas, an educator, republican line. caller: i just want to say i am an educator. i'm not republican. i would make education a completely free market good. i would get rid of compulsory school attendance. --would get rid of taxation a i think you need a wall that separates the government and education, just like we have a separation between government and religion. host: ok. june in wisconsin, independent. caller: hi. you know, the baby boomers got the last excellent, well-rounded public-school education. it was based on the basics -- proper english, writing. for whatever reason, somebody decided -- and i saw a teacher wrote an article on why we have to write all these rules in english, such as "i before e" in english. i thought, are you kidding me? for some reason somebody said, "whatever you think it is, and johnny." it's ridiculous. there's nothing wrong with people un
of that up, you are still going to be left with a huge hole called the deficit and it will have to mean cutting the federal budget. >> so, even if we increase the tax rates, as you noted, by the way, the top 1% in this country makes 17% of the income, and pay 37% of the taxes. i mean, so, the fair share argument really isn't -- >> up against a hard out here, and i'm going to ask you to give us your last thought here. >> mr. president, please, please, work with the business community. we want you to succeed. but, you are putting impediments in our way that make it impossible. we want you to succeed, we want to succeed. work with us. please work with us. >> andy puzder, thanks for being with us. european nations on the wrong side of the fiscal cliff but the president says america can steer clear. >> president barack obama: i believe it is solvable and my budget, frankly does it and i don't the republicans to adopt my budget, i recognize we have to compromise. compromise is hard. >> lou: more than a trillion-and-a-half dollars in tax hikes, no spending cuts. what is the deal? that is tonig
, don't worry as much about the deficit, the revenues will come in, and we have to get rid of the social safety net the way it's been, and cut spending, slash spending dramatically. it was very divided policywise and barack obama won pretty handily. >> a week after the election john boehner, speaker boehner, does a press statement and he says we're not going to raise revenues. we should look at loopholes and deductions. >> one thing that hasn't changed and you can put on as many senate republicans as you want looking reasonable. what hasn't changed is the tea party caucus in the house. they've lost a few members, but they're still a majority and john boehner has to find some way to get something past them. that's why i doubt there will be a christmastime deal. i think the president is going to have to let these tax cuts end and then boehner may have a chance of convincing them to pass tax cuts for the bottom 98% without the top 2%. >> do you agree with that, dr. peterson? that the president will be forced to allow these to run their course simply so that republicans in the house won't ha
? >> well, first of all, i do believe the middle class has a stake and a good, solid balanced, deficit reduction plan. the plan should be what the president campaigned on, namely balance. that means we've got to have a substantial contribution from revenues. the revenues have to come from the folks who have been making good money during the recession. that's folks over $250,000 or some number close to. that the pentagon's got to make a contribution and if there is anything on healthcare, it's gotta be about reforming it, bringing the costs down, not cutting benefits. >> eliot: let's drill down a couple of pieces of this. what do you think the underlying ratio should be between cost cutting and revenue generation. last summer it was 10 to 1 in terms of cutting costs to revenue. thankfully the deal didn't get done. should it be one-to-one? where would you like to see this happen? >> you know, i actually don't know that number because i think the question is i think we need about a trillion and a half from revenues and the
, that is .5 percent of the deficit. we cannot get there, get the deficit down without significant cuts in spending. >>neil: the election has consequences and you could argue that a key premise of the president's re-election was i will raise taxes on the rich and he is likely entitled to that, he will likely see that but it is all the other things they are leveraging with democrats do not touch entitlements and putting everything on table it remind me of george bush sr. he agreed to reverse the pledge oh ride -- "read my lips, no new taxes." but the democrats never offered correspondenting spend cuts. we know what happened to him. what happens to those who agree do in the republican party? >>guest: the republican party has to stand for economic growth and it has to stand for the principle that keeping tax rates low and reforming the tax system is the way to grow the economy. i disagree slightly with rand paul. i am in favor of closing loopholes. i hate them. i call them termites in the tax system but we should use that money to credit a first-class world class tax system that stops expo
will be speaking about the so-called fiscal cliff and that is a reduction -- and deficit reduction. we will have that live here on c-span at 11:30 a.m. eastern. over at the white house today, president obama is meeting with small business owners. at 12:30, jay carney will hold a press briefing and take questions from reporters. this afternoon, the president and vice president will meet with the mexican president who takes office december 1. the press briefing today at 12:30. on capitol hill, the house of representatives returns today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on their agenda this afternoon five bills including a measure requiring the department of a homeland security to report on security. later this week, a student visa program. also this week, the democratic leadership elections. that will be coming up later this week. live coverage of the house at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a number of senators have been meeting with u.n. ambassador susan rice in the wake of her comments following the attack on the benghazi consulate. just wrapping up is a brief news conference and statement with senators. here is a look.
clout with congress. the goal: a sweeping deficit agreement to avert $650 billion in spending cuts and tax increases at the start of 2013. from the white house came word that president obama will try to build public pressure on congress to raise taxes on the wealthy and prevent tax hikes for everyone else. white house spokesman jay carney. >> well, the president believes very strongly that the american people matter in this debate. because this debate is about them. the question of whether or not taxes go up on 98% of american tax payers is a very important to ordinary americans. it is not just a matter for discussion between the president and the senate minority leader. or other congressional leaders. >> brown: to that end the president met privately today with small business owners. on friday he'll travel to the philadelphia area to speak further on the issue. not to be outdone, house republicans said they'll meet with small business owners and workers in their districts arguing against the president's plan. in the senate republican my ontario leader mitch mcconnell dismissed the
. let's face it. it's a revenue problem. by definition, a deficit exists because you spend too much, and the president who is the leader of the country, you know, claims that the problem can all be solved by adding more revenue, which seems to me, a fundamental problem because you can keep adding money to the problem, but if the growth grows at such an exponential rate, you don't stop it. nevermind the deficit, you'll never come close to tackling the debt if there's not leadership from the white house on this issue. >> reporter: steven, you covered the issues, and you have for a very long time with distinction. at some point, it seems we're on a carosel of complaints and empirical evidence that does not change and the argument does not change. that is, we have a trillion dollar problem in terms of the deficit, a $16 trillion problem in terms of the debt, and we've got two parties that for all the world are acting as though we think we got 300 million americans in the country too dumb to understand what they've got to do. the only people who don't seem to get it are the republicans a
the deadlines we're facing on taxes and deficits. these deadlines are going to be coming up very soon in the coming weeks. but today's important because i want to make sure everybody understands this debate is not just about numbers. it's a set of major decisions that are going to affect millions of families all across this country in very significant ways. and their voices, the voices of the american people, have to be part of this debate. and so i asked some friends of mine here to join me, some folks from here in the area. our ultimate goal is an agreement that gets our long-term deficit under control in a way that is fair and balanced. that kind of agreement would be good for our businesses, it would be good for our economy, it would be good for our children's future. and i believe that both parties can agree on a framework that does that in the coming weeks. in fact, my hope is to get this done before christmas. but -- the place where we already have in theory at least complete agreement, right now, is on middle-class taxes. and as i've said before, we have two choices. if congre
reduce the deficit. it doesn't make a lot of sense to get rid of a deficit reduction program, as part of a deficit reduction deal. the white house already rejected boehner's idea. obama care will not be part of debt negotiations. boehner is up to something here, don't you think? something else, that is. if you watch john boehner closely over the last two weeks, you can see him laying the ground work for the latest ploy. he call eed obama care the law the land, but also tried to link it to obama care and the budget. >> you had said, next year, that you would repeal the health care vote. that's still your mission? >> well, i think the election changes that. it's pretty clear that the president was re-elected. obama care is the law of the land. i think there are parts of the health care law that are going to be very difficult to implement. and very expensive. and at a time where we're trying to find a way to create a toward a balanced budget, everything has to be on the table. >> but you won't be spending the time next year, trying to repeal obama care? >> there are certainly may be part
that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion. that is substance. so he has not waited for people to start smelling the jet fumes at national airport. he has actively put forward a plan. >> the white house and republicans are ramping up their pr, something significant is happening behind the scenes. both sides appear to be preparing their own basis to eat their vegetables, if you will. in other words, get ready to make some sacrifices on sacred cows that are required for a grand bargain. for republicans that means swallowing changes to the bush-era tax rates and yesterday the first major house republican broke with the party line in a private meeting with the house republican whip team which is responsible for counting the conference's votes. oklahoma congressman tom cole said it's time to immediately extend the bush-era tax cuts which, of course, is what obama is calling for, for households earning less than $250,000 a year. then he later told "the new york times," quote, the first thing i'd do is make sure we don't raise taxes on 98% of the american people. we'll get some credit for that, and it'
term -- deficit reduction -- that is important to america's credibility. it is important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced, and that means significant revenues and that paying has to go around. that means the wealthy and well-off have to pay their fair share as well. these should not be new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate -- even the foreign policy debate. the american people are on the side of the president and democrats who are making this case. that is not to say that there should not be spending as part as this debate. there has been over $1 trillion in spending cuts. that is a part of this debate that gets lost. just because washington has a short memory does not mean we should all have one and that there has already been sacrifice on behalf of the american people through those domestic discretionary cuts. we are excited. c.a.p. has been a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we have talked about medicare savings that can improve and strengthen the program and address rising national health expenditures. we
dollar deficits every year and throw a tantrum if someone suggests that maybe the taxpayers shouldn't keep subsidizing ever last program washington ever dreamed up. they are reckless and ideological approach threatens our very future. and anyone who is serious about solving the problems we face should ignore all of that starting with the president. megyn: meantime some of the president's supporters unleashed and ad blitz targeting key lawmakers reportedly spending close to $300,000 on an ad buy that talks about increasing taxes but leaving spending alone. here is part of that. >> how do we move our country forward and reduce the deficit, by creating jobs and growing our economy not by cutting programs that families rely on most. megyn: join me now is stu varney, who is host of varney & company. and chris stirewalt. you have all the unions unleashing and ad blitz to target the home states of key lawmakers trying to build pressure on them to not agree to any entitlement spending cuts and they are going directly to the american people to sell that message. what do you make of it? >> i
to pay a little bit more to reduce the deficit. bill: what happens if they don't see a deal? 90% of americans will see a tax hike in 2013. and families that make between $40,000 and $65,000 will have to pay an extra $2,000 to washington, d.c. in taxes. martha: concerns over america's fiscal cliff have sent the markets lower in premarket trading. there is a look at where the dow is poised to open this morning. with the dow, the s & p and the nasdaq all trading lower. speaking of that, a new round of violent protests break out in egypt as police fired teargas into the crowds. here are some of those scenes. >> unbelievable. more than 100,000 people flooded into downtown cairo. this time they are protesting the current president martha maccallum and his power grab. they are disillusioned with what he has brought to their country. then you have this happening. police firing teargas. gypt's highest courts refusing to work in protest of morsi's actions. steve harrigan is streaming live from cairo. the protests looked like the unrest we saw in that same square back in 2009 and the arab
puts forward his plan. how is he going to close the other part of that deficit? you know, his proposal right now, the most he can say would raise would be about $68 billion when our deficit last year was $90 billion. what is the president's plan for closing the additional additional $1 trillion worth of deficit? i think that's incumbent on the president to put forward his plan. >> from your standpoint alone, there's no way you see fit in the coming 35 days that you would break that pledge with glove norquist. >> well, thomas, let's use a couple numbers here. even with this measly economic growth we've seen the last three years, revenue at the federal government has increased $344 billion per year. if we just return to a normal economy that returns about 18.5%, that would increase revenue an additional over $400 billion per year, that's $750 billion of revenue per year through economic growth. and the president, his proposal would raise 1/10 of that but would put at risk the economic growth and that $750 billion. so -- >> sir, with all due respect, though -- >> counterproductive. >> tha
cut the budget, if we cut the deficit and raise taxes, i don't think that's the worst thing in the world. as warren buffett has been saying for the last 24 hours, are you really going to turn down a good investment opportunity just because the tax rates are a little higher in we're talking about a minor 4 percentage point increase in the upper end of the tax rate here. it's not life or death. you know, cutting the deficit and raising taxes, if they can't agree, which congress has shown themselves inability to agree. if they're not going to agree, maybe it's not the worst thing in the world for tax rates to go up and for the deficit to be cut. i think that could result in a big economic boom. >> wow. >> and then, let's say two weeks after we go over the cliff, after the 1st of january, they then cut attacks for everybody -- >> but here's the problem with that notion. it's not fine. but, john, it's not fine because a lot of ordinary middle class people -- >> that's the problem. >> -- are trying to spend money at christmas and they're deeply anxious about what's going to happen
" and he joins me now. thanks for being with us now. we appreciate it. you compare the deficit to an insurance policy. you say it doesn't make you any richer in the short-term, but in the long-term, it is helpful. i want to actually put your statements up. you say let's agree to keep deficits very high for at least another year. and then let's buy an insurance policy against that debt crisis when we can really afford it. so lots of republicans and democrats out there would disagree greatly with you. say that america's ability to pay its debt is really important. how would you respond to them? >> right. i do think that there's a thing that's taken place in washington deficit reduction will stimulate us to enormous growth in 2013. the fact is what deficit reduction is, is tax increases and spending cuts, both of which take economic activity out of the economy. so this really is extremely similar to insurance. if i buy, say, flood insurance. what i'm doing is i'm paying a short premium in the short-term, to protect my house in the long-term. that's exactly what deficit reduction i
, the u.s. situation with respect to our deficit and debt is a national security liability. we need our senior leadership to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so, a requirement to do so. the foundation of national power is ultimately economic. in terms of global influence, in terms of the ability to support a military, the economic is foundational. i think in the u.s. we have both an opportunity and requirement to get our house in order. i believe what hundreds of tatars and 435 members of the house will step up -- what 100 senators and 435 members of the house will step up. >> so we have america under control because of the amount of treasuries? >> [indiscernible] our position to the nine states is very, very decisive to strengthen our relationship. there is no intention for us to use this economic relationship and a different context. we are very satisfied. that's all. >> let me open up to the floor. with four microphones around the room. fast.going to go i will call on people whose names i don't know. but that is josh rogan from "the cable." >> thank you for your time today. i
by which additional deficit reduction over a ten-year period would occur. and that process was after the trillion dollars was whacked off -- which it already has be been -- that a super committee of six from the house and six from the senate would deliberate and a majority vote of that committee of 12 could determine additional deficit reduction that would apply over the next ten years. and to give a little incentive for that super committee not to deadlock, the process of sequestration was set up which, in effect, was this meat cleaver that in a nondiscriminate way was going to drop a meat ax approach of another half trillion out of defense and a half trillion out of non-defense discretionary, which nobody wanted. and of which was never contemplated that it was going to go into effect, because the effects were going to be so onerous that surely people of goodwill could come together on a 12-member committee and not deadlock but instead at least one would provide the majority, even if it were only 7-5 out of the 12, because the alternative was so unpalatable. and, of course, we know
approach to reducing the nation's deficit. let's bring in our panel. mary katharine ham editor-at-large of hot air.com and fox news contributor. peter mirijanian former advisor to the clinton-gore and gore-lieberman campaigns. when the president arrives at the white house to speak, he will have people behind him, ordinary americans who reached out to the white house and want their $2,000 middle class tax cut preserved. republicans are saying this is essentially a campaign stunt, a campaign appearance kind of event of the he won the election. he should get on the business of governing. what do you say? >> well, one quick observation, jon. i think what you're seeing, what i think is interesting the first social media presidency. this administration using technology and using social media to advance their agenda. but look, all presidents do this. george w. bush after his re-election famously said he has now the political capital he intend to use. so going to the public and going sort of over the head of congress is something democratic and republican presidents always do what they
down deficit. the campaign promise is to cut the deficit in half. he said he would do it by focusing at the center of his proposal, going to be entitlement reform. we have seen none of that. more than four years. >> bret: interesting op-ed by bill archer and chris cox in "wall street journal" saying that the real outlay is $86 trillion of unfunded liabilities. obligations when you include all of the federal government, what it owes. that is obviously dwarfs the $16 trillion in debt we hold. >> which raises the question why are republicans allowing the entire debate to be about taxes? and about the war among republicans over holding the line on the norquist pledge or not. when what obama is proposing on raising the rates on the 2% is a triviality. it will reduce the deficit from $11.01 trillion to $1. $1.02 trillion. eight cents on the dollar. nothing. lunch money. it's rounding error. yet that is all the debate we are hearing. obama understands this. he is trying to, he is not trying to fix our fiscal issues and problems. he's trying to destroy the republicans. by insisting that ther
to the voters that mitt romney did not. obviously, mitt romney had a huge deficit with african-american voters, hispanic voters and women voters, so i think these potential candidates are trying to map it out. >> david corn, when george w. bush ran, he got such a quick surge in the polls that no one was able to stop him. is jeb bush that guy this time? is he the one that if he makes it clear he's running, others will decide not to? >> you know, i still wonder if two words come to mind. too soon. i mean, the george w. bush presidency is still not held in high esteem amongst many voters who still blame bush for the economic downturn at the end of his administration that has carried us to this day. jeb bush has the ability to talk to hispanic, more moderate, but i also wonder if you know, people will be a little tired of the bush dynasty come to 2016. >> well, they're too tired of it now, but 2016 is a few years away. thank you both for joining me tonight. >>> coming up, good news for democrats trying to keep control of the senate in 2014 and one republican whose strategy for dealing with latino
we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction that doesn't hurt the economy or hurt middle class families. glad to see if you have been reading the pains more and more republicans in congress are agreeing with this idea we should have a balanced approach. >>shepard: he referenced some in the g.o.p. who signal they could be willing to play bull. the republican leadership still is insisting they will not consider tax hikes. >> republicans are willing to put revenue on the table the it is time for the president and democrats to get serious on the spending problem our country has. >>shepard: president obama continues the p.r. blitz. later today he is scheduled to meet with big business leaders to discuss the proposed fix to the fiscal cliff. ed henry is live with us at the white house. what seem it is to be lost in this is the tax cuts going to expire. that's it. if they want to extend them on some, they can. but he will not allow it on people who make more. what part of this is confusing? >>reporter: a lot of other pieces that are confusing because no one wants to come to the
, we have a trillion dollar annual deficit and this would not close that gap at all. so the president needs to come up with a plan and for better or worse going to require leadership. no member of the senate or the house is going to be able to do this, this is something the president has to do by himself and he can't do it on the campaign trail. >> let me ask you this because you wrote an op-ed today and you wrote about divided government about the deal. you said divided government means that neither democrats nor republicans will be able to pass legislation along strictly partisan lines. we cannot tax our way back to budget surpluses and economic prosperity without major spending cuts and entitle 347b9 reforms we will continue running a huge deficit regardless of what anyone does on either side. for every dollar of revenue you give him, he'll give you $2.50 of spending cuts. if he gave you that on spending cuts, it would be 8$850 billon year would you do that? >> the president has said a lot of things, but what counts is what he's willing to put on the table and so far, he hasn't put
. >> how do we move our country forward and reduce the deficit? by creating jobs and growing our economy, not by cutting programs that families rely on most. for working families it's all about putting americans back to work. not cutting the things we rely on most. >> there are signals they can't accept the kind of entitlement reforms in medicare and social security that senator graham is saying are prerequisite to a deal. >> let me tell you, first, george, and you know this, social security does not add one penny to our debt. not a penny. it's a separate funded operation. and we can do things and i believe we should now, smaller things, played out over the long term that gives its solvency. medicare is another story. only 12 years of solvency lie ahead if we do nothing. those who say don't touch it, don't change it are ignoring the obvious. we want medicare to be there for today's seniors and tomorrow, as well. we don't want to go to the poll and voucherizing it and we can make meaningful reforms without compromising the integrity of the program, making sure that the beneficiaries are n
senator pat toomey from pennsylvania. he was a member of the deficit reduction super committee last year that failed to agree on a plan. but he's been talking about this issue for a long, long time. good morning, senator. >> good morning. >> we just learned that president obama will be traveling to your backyard on friday to talk about the fiscal cliff and spending, and traveling to pennsylvania right now. is this a welcome visit as far as you're earned? >> as far as i'm concerned the president of the united states is always welcome in my state of pennsylvania. we welcome the president and look forward to his message, and i have some questions i'd like to-ish i hope he addresses. >> what questions? >> first of all the president seems absolutely determined to inflict a tax increase on the american people. two years ago he signed a bill that extended the current tax rates for two more years because he said the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in a weak economy. today the economy is weaker than it was two years ago. why in the world does he want to inflict that damage now? >> senato
and be on the group with a group of bipartisan business leaders and deficit hawks getting something done, meeting with republicans and democrats. do you have any more optimism let me point out you and your pal erskine bowles, he was quoted as saying he's more pessimistic something will be accomplished. >> my poor dear partner, bloodied but unvowed, six months ago erskine was saying i think we can get there. now, he's pessimistic. would be a word. we were just with a group go big or go home, democrats and republicans alike, they've got signatures of over 200 -- 102 house members, half of the senate working for us, equally divided on both sides, you have to have something bipartisan. you can write it on a single sheet of paper if it had firewalls and triggers, and if it were just signed by an equal number of democrats and republicans, the markets would lay off of us. if they continue to see this dead-head struggling, the same old stuff, they're going to punish us. when they do the guy that will get hurt is the little guy, middle class, inflation, interest rates, that's who gets hammered. what an ir
which means lowering tax rates not necessarily deficit reduction. it is the same policy romney had. it is where they were before the election. they gotta wake up and see the election, change things and they actually have to meet democrats somewhere in the middle. >> bill: i would hope. i would hope. new york times this morning, front page of the business section in terms of closing loopholes, romney was never specific about which one. new york times is saying that they know -- now we know one of the ones they're targeting. the headline is a tax break once sacred is now seen as vulnerable. what they're talking about is the mortgage interest deduction. there was no doubt it is on the table. it is one they're targeting rather than raise tax rates on the wealthy, they're going to either limit or get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. which is the most popular one. >> the most popular one. politically difficult i think. that's really the problem with romney's entire approach that said we'll just create revenue
interest deduction cap from a million dollars to $500,000 say it will help cut the deficit, keep interest rates low, and that could help the housing market all by itself. dean reynolds, cbs news, chicago. >> u.n. ambassador susan rice returns to capitol hill today her meeting with lawmakers yesterday to discuss her explanation of the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya didn't go over very well. she met with three republican senators strongly opposed to her possible nomination to be secretary of state. they were not satisfied with her explanation. >> all i can tell you is that the concerns that i have are greater today than they were before and we're not even close to getting the basic answer. >> following the benghazi attack rice said the assault grew out of a protest and not a terrorist attack. yesterday she said that was incorrect. that there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. >>> overseas now in egypt the largest crowd yet have turned out to demonstrate against president morsi's declaration of wide ranging new powers. hundreds of thousands of protesters in cairo's tahrir sq
as republicans have been trying to do since 2005 when we passed the deficit reduction act. >> let me jump to that, because part of the intriguing thing here is the fact that congressman cole, he is doing something that the president said, that post election news conference and that is, you know, extend the tax cut for everyone, but the wealthy, and then, you know, after you get that done, and i don't know if you would be going along with that, but nevertheless, you know, go ahead, talk about this long-term deal that would involve possible cuts as i think you're getting at, you know, cuts to programs like medicare. is that something we could see taking shape here? >> you're talking about getting rid of redundancies. great example, 342 economic development programs that are in the federal government system. let's start cleaning up these redundancies. let's do some of these across the board cuts in discretionary spending. let's make certain that medicare and social security, which are trust funds, not entitlements, they're trust funds, that they meet their obligation to our seniors and near seniors.
on a comprehensive plan to bring down our deficits, to streamline our tax system, to do it in a balanced way, including asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little more so we can invest in training, education, science, and research. now, i know some of this may sound familiar to you because we talked a lot about this during the campaign. this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. this was a major debate in the presidential campaign and in congressional campaigns all across the country and a clear majority of americans, not just democrats but also a lot of republicans and a lot of independents agreed we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction that doesn't hurt the economy and doesn't hurt middle class families. and i'm glad to see, if you've been reading the papers lately, that more and more republicans in congress seem to be agreeing with this idea that we should have a balanced approach. so if both parties agree we should not raise taxes on middle class families, let's begin our work with where we agree. the senate's already passed a bill that keeps income taxes from going up
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 148 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)